I swear I posted in this thread already, but I can't find that post...

Anyways, GRAPHICS;

To say they're unimportant would be a lie. 99.999% of games use graphics of some form, whether they are ASCII characters or the most complicated of 3D models. Graphics also allow the ability for a developer to simulate spaces, which every game genre uses to present challenges to the player (barring in mind text-only adventure games). However, the QUALITY of a games graphics do not matter as much as the sharpness of the visual language of that games graphics. What I mean by "Visual Language" is how a game communicates what it wants to communicate to the player through visuals. For example, if a game has trillions of polygons to a model but I can't tell what I'm supposed to be doing or what are good and bad things than that game has failed as a game.

Thanks given to Xkhaoz for that one avatar.Please contact me before using my custom avatar!
A (Former) Reviewer for Digitally Downloaded.net
My Backloggery: http://backloggery.com/v8_ninja

Graphics are important but without gameplay mean nothing. The Wii U is HD so content will look good. I don't see the point in arguing the toss about ps4 and 720 being better graphically as they will be. I don't see myself buying them though. I have an unused ps3 and 360 underneath my tv. All I play at the moment is my 3DS, which is graphically weaker than the 2 but has the games I enjoy playing.

I remember playing GTA 4 for the first time, and it being very pretty. But after a while the game just got boring. On the other hand saints row didn't look as good but was more fun. It didn't look terrible by any means but gameplay and enjoyment go a long way.

Let me make an FPS game called "The Keller Experience". It has amazing gameplay, brilliant multiplayer and tight controls, but unfortunately, your character has distorted vision and can't see whether he's shooting at a cockroach or a soldier. GOTY?

The overall technical make up of a console is important, and graphics are a part of this. We know that the Wii U's GPU is more powerful than the 360's (by how much, we don't know exactly) and has a generous amount of eRAM, so graphics aren't actually one of my concerns. It's certainly many times more powerful than the Wii and Nintendo's own games will make excellent use of the hardware. I don't think the Wii U will be able to compete graphically with it's next-gen competitors, but I also don't think the gap will be anywhere near as severe as with the Wii and 360/PS3, so again, I'm not too concerned.

In terms of the wider graphics debate, I find interesting art more appealing than raw technical grunt. Nintendo's artists were still able to make Skyward Sword and Mario Galaxy look gorgeous despite the modest capabilities of the Wii. Of course, gameplay is king, but it's nice when a game is attractive too!

I earlier said that graphics capabilities are just once piece of the puzzle and this brings me to my concern with the Wii U - it's CPU. See, the 360 and PS3 didn't just mark a huge improvement in graphics, but in other areas too. AI, physics and object interaction, animation, the physical size of game worlds and how much was happening within them, and the number of characters on screen at once, among other things. If the Wii U's CPU is weaker than the 360's, then it may well be a big problem area in the future. The biggest area for improvement on future systems is AI. Again, it won't matter for first party games, but for third parties who want to release on multiple platforms, it could be an issue. The GPGPU will compensate for the CPU, but by how much, we don't know. Ultimately, developers need to get used to the system and work out how to take full advantage of all its components. Will they bother? That's the Wii U's real challenge.